On Mon, Jan 9, 2023 at 9:54 PM Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Page fault handlers might need to fire MMU notifications while a new
> notifier is being registered. Modify mm_take_all_locks to write-lock all
> VMAs and prevent this race with fault handlers that would hold VMA locks.
> VMAs are locked before i_mmap_rwsem and anon_vma to keep the same
> locking order as in page fault handlers.
>
> Signed-off-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> mm/mmap.c | 3 +++
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/mm/mmap.c b/mm/mmap.c
> index 30c7d1c5206e..a256deca0bc0 100644
> --- a/mm/mmap.c
> +++ b/mm/mmap.c
> @@ -3566,6 +3566,7 @@ static void vm_lock_mapping(struct mm_struct *mm, struct address_space *mapping)
> * of mm/rmap.c:
> * - all hugetlbfs_i_mmap_rwsem_key locks (aka mapping->i_mmap_rwsem for
> * hugetlb mapping);
> + * - all vmas marked locked
The existing comment above says that this is an *ordered* listing of
which locks are taken.
> * - all i_mmap_rwsem locks;
> * - all anon_vma->rwseml
> *
> @@ -3591,6 +3592,7 @@ int mm_take_all_locks(struct mm_struct *mm)
> mas_for_each(&mas, vma, ULONG_MAX) {
> if (signal_pending(current))
> goto out_unlock;
> + vma_write_lock(vma);
> if (vma->vm_file && vma->vm_file->f_mapping &&
> is_vm_hugetlb_page(vma))
> vm_lock_mapping(mm, vma->vm_file->f_mapping);
Note that multiple VMAs can have the same ->f_mapping, so with this,
the lock ordering between VMA locks and the mapping locks of hugetlb
VMAs is mixed: If you have two adjacent hugetlb VMAs with the same
->f_mapping, then the following operations happen:
1. lock VMA 1
2. lock mapping of VMAs 1 and 2
3. lock VMA 2
4. [second vm_lock_mapping() is a no-op]
So for VMA 1, we ended up taking the VMA lock first, but for VMA 2, we
took the mapping lock first.
The existing code has one loop per lock type to ensure that the locks
really are taken in the specified order, even when some of the locks
are associated with multiple VMAs.
If we don't care about the ordering between these two, maybe that's
fine and you just have to adjust the comment; but it would be clearer
to add a separate loop for the VMA locks.
> @@ -3677,6 +3679,7 @@ void mm_drop_all_locks(struct mm_struct *mm)
> if (vma->vm_file && vma->vm_file->f_mapping)
> vm_unlock_mapping(vma->vm_file->f_mapping);
> }
> + vma_write_unlock_mm(mm);
>
> mutex_unlock(&mm_all_locks_mutex);
> }
> --
> 2.39.0
>
